M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

deemed to represent the income in respect of which\nparticulars have been concealed. Thus, 1 confirm the penalty levied by the\nAO of Rs.26.38,078/-u/s: 271(1)(c)of the Act, being 100% of the tax\nsought to be evaded.\"\n\n5.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the\nfollowing detailed written

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

dividend during this year. It is also noticed that assessment\nu/s 143(3) r.w.s.153B(1)(b) of the Act was completed on 30-03-2016 at assessed\nincome of Rs.10,16,91,450/-. The penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s\n271AAB of the Act for 'undisclosed income\" admitted during the course of\nsearch vide penalty show cause notice dated

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

271(1)(c) of the\nAct. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi-42 vide order dated\n03/03/2022 [here in after Id. CIT(A) ] dismissed both the appeals filed by\nthe assessee. The first appeal filed relates to the assessment order passed\nu/s. 144/147 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur dated\n19.12.2016 and consequent

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice.” (Ground wise submissions are as follows) After discussing the brief facts of the case and grounds of appeal, the appellant very humbly and respectfully begs to submit

SATYA NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

dividends received are dully disclosed in the return of income. 4. That on the facts and in totality of the circumstances, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining addition of rupee 8,20,000/- as cash 3 ITA NP. 369/JP/2022 SATYA NARAIN PARWAL VS ITO WARD 3(2), JAIPUR and Time deposits in Bank on the ground that source

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

deemed to be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply Thus “CAPITALISATION OF INTEREST PAID TO BANK DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD” is neither any expenditure Nor “Unproved”, Since complete details From Date of Acquisition to Sale, Source of Acquisition, Interest paid / payable to Bank were Filed before A.O. and A.O. after considering

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi-42 vide order dated 03/03/2022 [here in after ld. CIT(A) ] dismissed both the appeals filed by the assessee. The first appeal filed relates to the assessment order passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur dated Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ 9 ITA NO.414.JPR/2025 SYLVAN GREEN PRIVATE LTD VS DCIT,CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR 2.3 In first appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by confirming the action of the AO as to the addition

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DY. CIT (ACIT) CIRCLE -2 AJMER , CR BUILDING,OPP. SESSION COURT,JAIPUR ROAD ,AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2343 Rajasthan Patrika Building, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer – 305004 Pan No. Aaajb1164C ...... Appellant

dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income; (e) in respect of any income derived by the co-operative society from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities, the whole of such income; (f) in the case

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

dividends to its shareholders and had good amount of book profit, was, nevertheless, filing a return of nil income for the purpose of income-tax. 16. When once the assessee-company had developed housing project, where the income is exempted under s. 80-IB(10), the assessee- company had legitimate expectation to enjoy the benefit of exemption Shree Cement Limited